Where’s the line between donations and bribes?

Karen Finley, the former CEO of Reflex, has pleaded guilty to a bribery and fraud scheme. She is seen here standing by a box containing apparatus used to capture photos of red-light runners.(Photo: Sherrie Buzby/The Republic)

COLUMBUS – The difference between an illegal bribe and a legitimate campaign donation often is a wink and a nod — something state law doesn’t regulate and politicians have little incentive to restrict.

FBI agents are investigating a campaign finance scheme in which red-light camera executive Karen Finley admitted she bribed, or at least tried to bribe, officials in both Cincinnati and Columbus. Finley worked for the Arizona-based firm Redflex, which lobbied to install cameras in Cincinnati between 2005 and 2008, but was unsuccessful. In Columbus, records suggest $20,000 was funneled through the Ohio Democratic Party to mayoral candidate Andrew Ginther.

But proving anyone was involved in quid pro quo – a “something for something” exchange – will be nearly impossible to prove, said Catherine Turcer, policy analyst for the left-leaning government watchdog group Common Cause Ohio. The state’s campaign finance laws have gaping loopholes that allow money to flow through state political parties as long as it’s not too overt, she said.

“Bribery is very, very, very hard to prove,” said Bradley Smith, a Capital University law professor and former chairman of the Federal Election Commission. Crack down too hard and lawmakers limit legitimate campaign donations from people who simply want to support their favorite candidate, he added. “I don’t think there’s much you can do.”

What’s the difference?

Here’s the problem: let’s say Bob Buckeye wants to give a lot of money to candidate Sally Smith’s campaign. Ohio law prohibits him from giving more than $12,532 to the campaign directly, but Bob could give as much as $37,597 to Sally’s political party.

If Bob says the money is for Sally, that is an illegal earmark. But if Bob, with a wink and a nudge, gives money to Sally’s party, which then donates to her campaign, there’s no problem, Turcer said.

“That’s the way the system works. That’s the current state of campaign politics,” said Bill DeMora, a member of the Democratic Party’s executive committee. “There’s nothing nefarious about a state party giving money to candidates up and down the ticket.”

Even if a contribution looks suspicious, like in the red-light camera case, the FBI will need evidence that politicians knew about the donations and explicitly provided a service in exchange for them, Turcer said. “The smoking gun is not enough unless it’s in the candidate’s hand.”

Take Northeast Ohio businessman Ben Suarez. He was accused of illegally funneling $100,000 each in donations to Ohio Treasurer Josh Mandel and U.S. Rep. Jim Renacci, R-Wadsworth. Some of the money was given just days after Mandel sent official state treasurer’s letters on Suarez’s behalf. But Mandel, who denied any wrongdoing, never was charged and Suarez was acquitted of all campaign finance offenses. He instead was sentenced to 15 months for witness tampering.

In the end, as a Republican wave swept Ohio, the trial didn’t hurt Mandel’s bid for re-election: he defeated Democratic challenger Connie Pillich, a Montgomery state representative, with 56.6 percent of the vote.

Many officials who make headlines for campaign finance scandals are caught not reporting gifts — something that won’t get them kicked out of office. That’s what happened with former state Rep. Dale Mallory, D-West End, who broke ethics laws by taking expensive Bengals tickets from two Cincinnati lobbyists and not reporting it. Last year, he lost a six-way primary to be the Democratic nominee for a Senate seat, but he’s still eligible to serve as a lawmaker.

Rep. Ron Gerberry, the most-senior House Democrat, became the most recent lawmaker to resign for campaign finance problems. He will face a charge related to illegal campaign contributions in Mahoning and Franklin counties, Franklin County Prosecutor Ron O’Brien said.

Turcer said she was surprised some lawmakers can’t follow the rules better.

“There are so many ways to legally engage in shenanigans, I don’t know why you would actually bother breaking the law,” Turcer said.

Both Ohio Republican Party Chairman Matt Borges and Ohio Democratic Party Chairman David Pepper said their candidates don’t engage in quid pro quo. Pepper said he’s assisting with the FBI’s investigation, but he was not in charge when the donations were made.

Scandals spur reform

The last time Ohio lawmakers overhauled campaign finance laws was in 2004 on the heels of several scandals. Then-Gov. Bob Taft called lawmakers back from their December vacation to close some loopholes in campaign finance laws.

In another, a $50,000 donation from Cleveland broker Frank Gruttadauria was funneled through the Hamilton County Republican Party to then-Ohio Treasurer Joe Deters’ re-election campaign. Two of Deter’s aides, including Borges, pleaded guilty to misdemeanors. Deters, who now serves as Hamilton County prosecutor, denied wrongdoing and never was charged.

In early 2004, outgoing Speaker Larry Householder, a Republican, was under federal investigation for an alleged kickback scheme that never resulted in charges but left a black mark on Householder and the party.

Republicans were under immense pressure to improve campaign finance laws, and in many ways they did, Turcer said. Changes made it easier to see where money was going and restricted county parties’ donations. They also increased the amount of money individuals could contribute from $2,500 to $10,000 — something that made Democrats vote against the law.

In 2010, the GOP-run Senate passed a proposal to limit corporate and union donations after the Citizens United decision from the U.S. Supreme Court. However, lawmakers in the House, under control of the Democrats, did not vote on the bill.

No substantial changes to campaign finance laws have been proposed this year.

High campaign finance limits a problem?

Perhaps the most-suggested change is lowering Ohio’s high limits on individual contributions.

Donors can contribute more to Ohio lawmakers than legislators in any other state with limits; 12 states have none. In fact, Ohio’s campaign finance limit for lawmakers is five times higher than the national average, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. A 2005 ballot initiative to lower Ohio’s limits failed overwhelmingly.

Still, lowering donation limits has its downsides, Smith said. “One of the biggest benefits about higher limits is it cuts down on people giving it to opaque services (such as political action committees) if people can give directly to candidate,” he said.

Any change to campaign finance laws likely would require public outrage, and the red-light camera problem isn’t generating that much, Turcer said. The status quo works for those who want access to politicians.

“The millions that are raised come from people who want access; it’s one of many problems with the process,” former Ohio Democratic Party chairman Chris Redfern said. “I don’t think there’s political will to change it.”